Williams et al v. Godinez et al

Filing 59

ORDER, Granting 53 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Mikal Davis, Brian Thomas, Sedrick Phillips, Michael Williams. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 07/08/14. (dkd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, BRIAN
THOMAS, SEDRICK PHILLIPS, and
MIKAL DAVIS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SALVADOR GODINEZ, TY J. BATES,
RANDY DAVIS, NORMAN SUITS,
OFFICER BARNHART, and
UNKNOWN AND UNNAMED
OFFICERS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12–cv–0808–MJR–SCW

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
REAGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiffs Michael Williams, Brian Thomas, Sedrick Phillips, and Mikal Davis
have sued Defendant prison officials for alleged violating their Eighth Amendment
rights by subjecting them to unconstitutional conditions of confinement (Doc. 1). On
July 25, 2013, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 (Doc. 40). The undersigned District Judge ruled on the Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Certify Class on March 31, 2014, granting the Motion to the extent that it sought
certification under Rule 23(b)(3), and denying it as to Rules 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) (Doc.
52). The ruling, which would grant certification as to all inmates incarcerated at the
Dixon Springs Impact Incarceration Program (“IIP”) between May 25, 2010, and the
present, was conditioned on the appointment of qualified class counsel. Plaintiffs were
1|Page

granted leave to file a motion under Rule 23(g) for the appointment of class counsel,
which Plaintiffs did on April 16, 2014 (Doc. 54). Responses and replies were timely filed
and the Motion is properly before the Court.
Rule 23(g): Appointment of Class Counsel
In their Motion, Plaintiffs argue for the appointment of Mr. Edward Fox of Ed
Fox & Associates.

The Court notes that, in their reply to Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Appointment of Class Counsel, Defendants did not object to Mr. Fox’s qualifications
(Doc. 54). Defendants’ decision not to object to Mr. Fox’s appointment as class counsel
does not relieve the Court of its requirement to evaluate the proposed counsel. “Unless
a state provides otherwise, a court that certifies a class must appoint class counsel.”
Rule 23(g)(1). In doing so, the Court must consider, inter alia, the work the proposed
counsel has done to date with regard to the identification and investigation of potential
claims, proposed counsel’s experience in class actions generally and actions involving
the instant case’s claims specifically, knowledge of applicable law, and resources which
the proposed counsel can commit to representing the class. Id.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Class Counsel discusses Mr. Fox’s each of
the above considerations, detailing Mr. Fox’s work with the named Plaintiffs over the
past four years, research conducted by Mr. Fox and his firm, and his experience in class
action cases, complex litigation, and cases involving claims similar to the instant case.
Plaintiffs continue by pointing to the work already conducted by Mr. Fox, in addition to
their plans for the future. The Court believes that Mr. Fox is capable of fairly and
adequately representing the interests of the class. Rule 23(g)(4).
2|Page

Rule 23(g) does allow for the consideration of attorneys’ fees and costs.
However, unlike questions of proposed class counsel’s experience and relevant
knowledge, which the Court must consider, the Court need not address the award of
attorneys’ fees or non-taxable costs under Rule 23(h) at this time. Rule 23(g)(1)(D).
Such an award must be made by motion under Rule 54(d)(2). Rule 23(h)(1). Similarly
the Court will not rule at this time on the applicability of the PLRA to the award of
attorneys’ fees. Stated simply, it is premature to consider attorneys’ fees, costs, and
expenses at this juncture in the litigation.
Based upon Plaintiffs’

statements and coupled with the

Defendants’

abovementioned lack of objection to Mr. Fox, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion
and appoints Mr. Edward Fox as class counsel, and accordingly CERTIFIES the class of
all convicted offenders in the State of Illinois who, from May 25, 2010 through the
present, were incarcerated as inmates at the Dixon Springs Impact Incarceration
Center.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

July 8, 2014
s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
United States District Judge

3|Page